采用外部冷却法控制脓毒症休克患者的发热:随机对照试验
Fever Control Using External Cooling in Septic Shock: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Rationale:
Fever control may improve vascular tone and decrease oxygen consumption, but fever may contribute to combat infection.
Objectives:
To determine whether fever control by external cooling diminishes vasopressor requirements in septic shock.
Methods:
In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, febrile patients with septic shock requiring vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, and sedation were allocated to external cooling (n=101) to achieve normothermia (36.5–37°C) for 48 hours or no external cooling (n=99). Vasopressors were tapered to maintain the same blood pressure target in the two groups. The primary endpoint was the number of patients with a 50% decrease in baseline vasopressor dose after 48 hours.
Measurements and Main Results:
Body temperature was significantly lower in the cooling group after 2 hours of treatment (36.8±0.7 vs. 38.4±1.1°C; P<0.01). A 50% vasopressor dose decrease was significantly more common with external cooling from 12 hours of treatment (54 vs. 20%; absolute difference, 34%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], ?46 to ?21; P<0.001) but not at 48 hours (72 vs. 61%; absolute difference, 11%; 95% CI, ?23 to 2). Shock reversal during the intensive care unit stay was significantly more common with cooling (86 vs. 73%; absolute difference, 13%; 95% CI, 2 to 25; P=0.021). Day-14 mortality was significantly lower in the cooling group (19 vs. 34%; absolute difference, ?16%; 95% CI, ?28 to ?4; P=0.013).
Conclusions:
In this study, fever control using external cooling was safe and decreased vasopressor requirements and early mortality in septic shock.
Fever control may improve vascular tone and decrease oxygen consumption, but fever may contribute to combat infection.
Objectives:
To determine whether fever control by external cooling diminishes vasopressor requirements in septic shock.
Methods:
In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, febrile patients with septic shock requiring vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, and sedation were allocated to external cooling (n=101) to achieve normothermia (36.5–37°C) for 48 hours or no external cooling (n=99). Vasopressors were tapered to maintain the same blood pressure target in the two groups. The primary endpoint was the number of patients with a 50% decrease in baseline vasopressor dose after 48 hours.
Measurements and Main Results:
Body temperature was significantly lower in the cooling group after 2 hours of treatment (36.8±0.7 vs. 38.4±1.1°C; P<0.01). A 50% vasopressor dose decrease was significantly more common with external cooling from 12 hours of treatment (54 vs. 20%; absolute difference, 34%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], ?46 to ?21; P<0.001) but not at 48 hours (72 vs. 61%; absolute difference, 11%; 95% CI, ?23 to 2). Shock reversal during the intensive care unit stay was significantly more common with cooling (86 vs. 73%; absolute difference, 13%; 95% CI, 2 to 25; P=0.021). Day-14 mortality was significantly lower in the cooling group (19 vs. 34%; absolute difference, ?16%; 95% CI, ?28 to ?4; P=0.013).
Conclusions:
In this study, fever control using external cooling was safe and decreased vasopressor requirements and early mortality in septic shock.
上一篇: 超市中的皮肤过敏
下一篇: 美国重症监护患者再收治的流行情况
学科代码:传染病学 重症监护 关键词:脓毒症休克
来源: Eclips
来源: Eclips
Eclips介绍:Eclips由权威专家阅读世界顶级医学期刊(包括New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, BMJ 等)后筛选出最顶尖的文章,并总结、分级和点评,为繁忙的临床医生提供最快、最有效的前沿医学信息,并同时提供临床医生参与点评文献和同行互动交流的学术平台。 请点击申请试用并填写联系信息,我们将每月为前100位申请者发送带有用户名、密码及网页链接的电子邮件,请您注意查收!感谢您的参与及使用! 马上访问Eclips网站http://eclips.consult.com/
顶一下(0)
- 您可能感兴趣的文章
-